Can a Common-Law Partner Claim Pre-Cohabitation Property?
Introduction
A common-law partner generally cannot claim ownership of property that the other partner acquired individually before their cohabitation began. The property rules for unmarried couples apply to property acquired during the period of cohabitation and do not automatically convert separately owned assets into common property.
The result may differ if the claimant proves an independent legal basis, such as an actual contribution to the acquisition or improvement of the property, an agreement recognizing a share, or circumstances showing that the property was acquired during the cohabitation rather than before it.
Governing Rules on Unmarried Couples
Philippine law distinguishes between two types of cohabitation. The first involves a man and woman who are capacitated to marry each other and live exclusively as husband and wife without a valid marriage or under a void marriage. This situation is governed by Article 147 of the Family Code.
The second covers relationships that do not fall under Article 147, including situations where one party is legally married to another or where the parties are otherwise incapacitated to marry each other. These relationships are governed by Article 148 of the Family Code.
Property Acquired During Cohabitation Under Article 147
Under Article 147 of the Family Code, wages and salaries earned during the cohabitation are owned by the parties in equal shares. Property acquired by both parties through their work or industry is governed by the rules on co-ownership.
Properties acquired while the parties lived together are presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts and are generally owned in equal shares, unless the contrary is proved. The law also recognizes household care and family maintenance as a form of contribution. (Family Code, Article 147.)
The presumption applies to property acquired during the legally relevant period of cohabitation. It does not, by its terms, cover property already owned exclusively by one party before the cohabitation began.
Property Acquired During Cohabitation Under Article 148
Article 148 applies when the parties’ relationship does not qualify under Article 147. Only property acquired through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry is owned in common.
The shares correspond to the parties’ respective contributions. Their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed equal only when there is proof that both parties actually contributed. If no actual contribution by the claimant is established, co-ownership does not arise. (Family Code, Article 148; Ventura, Jr. v. Abuda, et al., G.R. No. 202932, 2013; De Canada v. Baclot, et al., G.R. No. 221874, 2020.)
Accordingly, Article 148 does not give a common-law partner an automatic share in every property possessed by the other partner. The claimant must first establish that the property was acquired during the relationship and that the claimant contributed money, property, or industry to its acquisition.
What Happens to Property Bought Before Cohabitation?
Property acquired and owned exclusively by one partner before the actual start of cohabitation remains that partner’s separate property, absent proof of a subsequent transfer, agreement, contribution, or other legal basis for shared ownership.
The timing of acquisition is therefore important. A claimant must distinguish between:
- property acquired before the parties began living together;
- property acquired during their cohabitation; and
- property acquired during cohabitation but paid for exclusively by one party.
Articles 147 and 148 primarily govern the second category. They do not, by themselves, transfer ownership of the first category to the other partner.
Proof Required to Establish a Share
A person claiming co-ownership should present evidence showing both the relevant period of acquisition and the contribution made to the property. Depending on the circumstances, useful evidence may include the deed of sale, receipts, bank records, loan documents, payment records, construction contracts, tax declarations, and written acknowledgments.
Registration in both names may support a claim of co-ownership, but registration alone may not resolve the issue where the evidence shows that one party acquired and paid for the property separately. Conversely, registration solely in one party’s name does not necessarily defeat a claim if the other party can prove an actual contribution recognized by law.
In Ventura, Jr. v. Abuda, et al., G.R. No. 202932, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that property may be considered common under Article 148 only when it was acquired during the cohabitation and there is evidence of the parties’ actual joint contribution. The Court also recognized that the title’s wording, including the description of a person as married to another, does not by itself establish co-ownership.
Does Household Work Create a Share in Pre-Cohabitation Property?
Household care and family maintenance may constitute contribution under Article 147 when the property was acquired during the cohabitation and the parties meet the requirements of that provision. This rule does not ordinarily create an ownership interest in property that one partner already owned before the relationship began.
The distinction is between contribution to the acquisition of property and contribution to the household generally. Household services may support a claim involving property acquired during the union, but they do not automatically transfer ownership of an asset previously acquired by the other partner.
Property Improvements and Additions
A pre-cohabitation property may remain separately owned even if the parties later live in it together. However, disputes may arise over improvements, additional structures, mortgage payments, or substantial renovations made during the relationship.
The claimant may attempt to establish a separate claim for reimbursement or a share in improvements by proving actual financial contribution, labor, an agreement, or another recognized legal basis. Such a claim is different from asserting automatic co-ownership of the underlying land or pre-existing house.
The evidence should identify the original property, the date of its acquisition, the date of the parties’ cohabitation, the improvements made, who paid for them, and whether the parties agreed on ownership or reimbursement.
Effect of a Valid Marriage
If the parties later enter into a valid marriage, the applicable property regime may affect property acquired during the marriage. The Family Code generally provides for absolute community of property in the absence of a valid marriage settlement, subject to statutory exclusions and other applicable rules.
That marriage-based regime should not be confused with the rules governing the parties’ earlier unmarried cohabitation. Property acquired before the marriage may require separate analysis under the applicable property regime, the marriage settlement, and the provisions of the Family Code concerning exclusive and community property.
Special Rule When One Partner Is Married to Another
When one party is validly married to another person, Article 148 applies to the relationship with the common-law partner. Only property acquired through actual joint contribution is co-owned, and the share of the legally married party may accrue to the absolute community or conjugal partnership existing in the valid marriage. (Family Code, Article 148.)
In De Canada v. Baclot, et al., G.R. No. 221874, 2020, the Supreme Court explained that actual contribution must first be shown. If actual contribution is not established, co-ownership does not arise; the presumption of equal shares cannot replace proof that a contribution existed.
Can a Partner Claim Property Merely Because It Was Used as the Family Home?
Use of a property as the family home does not, by itself, establish ownership. Occupation, residence, payment of household expenses, or participation in family life may be relevant evidence, but these facts do not automatically prove that the occupant acquired a proprietary share in property bought before cohabitation.
The claimant must connect the alleged contribution to the acquisition or improvement of the property. General support of the household, without proof of a legally recognized ownership basis, is ordinarily insufficient to transfer title or create co-ownership over a pre-existing asset.
Illustrative Examples
Example 1: Property bought before cohabitation. A purchased a condominium in 2015 using personal funds. A began living with B in 2019. B may not claim an automatic one-half share merely because B lived in the condominium or helped with ordinary household expenses.
Example 2: Property bought during Article 147 cohabitation. A and B were both capacitated to marry each other and lived exclusively as husband and wife. A purchased land during their cohabitation, while B managed the household. If the requirements of Article 147 are established and no contrary proof exists, B may invoke the statutory presumption of joint efforts.
Example 3: Property bought during an Article 148 relationship. A was validly married to another person while living with B. B claims a share in land purchased during the relationship but presents no proof of payment, labor, or other actual contribution. Under Article 148, B’s claim may fail because actual contribution is required.
Example 4: Improvements to a pre-existing house. A owned a house before living with B. During the cohabitation, B paid for a major extension supported by receipts and bank records. B may have a claim concerning the proven improvement or reimbursement, but the evidence does not automatically establish ownership of the land or the original house.
Practical Steps in Evaluating a Claim
- Determine the exact date when cohabitation began.
- Verify when the property was acquired and when payment was made.
- Identify whether the relationship falls under Article 147 or Article 148.
- Collect proof of financial, property, or industry contributions.
- Separate the original property from later improvements or additions.
- Check whether a valid marriage, marriage settlement, prior ownership, or third-party interest affects the dispute.
Parties should preserve deeds of sale, titles, receipts, bank transfers, loan records, construction documents, tax payments, written agreements, and communications concerning ownership. Early documentation is especially important because the person asserting co-ownership generally bears the burden of proving the facts supporting the claim.
Conclusion
A common-law partner does not acquire an automatic share in property that the other partner individually bought and owned before cohabitation. Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code concern property acquired during the relationship and impose different requirements depending on whether the parties were capacitated to marry and lived exclusively with each other.
Under Article 147, property acquired during qualifying cohabitation may be presumed jointly acquired, subject to proof to the contrary. Under Article 148, actual joint contribution must first be shown. In either situation, a claim involving property acquired before cohabitation requires an independent basis, such as a proven contribution to a later improvement, an express agreement, a valid transfer, or another legally recognized right.
About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices
Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines. You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines. You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.
